Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Freedom Fighter Or Terrorist?

By Stan G. Kain
August 10, 2003

The liberation of Iraq is well underway, according to the White House.  The oppressive government of Afghanistan has been removed.  American intelligence and the Homeland Security Agency alert us to the activities of terrorist groups and spend hours identifying these opponents to freedom.  Freedom fighters in many countries have been employed to assist in the demise of oppressive regimes.  Certainly, we should all know the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.  But do we?

Freedom fighter, guerrilla or terrorist, the distinction should be clear.  In fact, the line of distinction is not so well defined, depending upon which side of the fence you reside.  The word, "terrorist," implies one is operating outside the international standards that govern war and diplomacy, minimizes the goals being fought for and certainly tarnishes the public image.

Even within U.S. agencies, there are different definitions of a terrorist. The State Department looks at whether the group focuses it's attacks on civilians, whether the leadership tolerates attacks on noncombatants and whether it has other avenues open to promoting protests.  Since September 11, 2001, President Bush has tried to eliminate gray areas of terrorism.  He says those who aid or abet terrorists are terrorists, themselves.

During the white supremacist rule of South Africa, the U.S. Department of Defense considered the anti-apartheid African National Congress to be a terrorist group.  Former PLO leader, Yasir Arafat has been both a terrorist and a partner in peace negotiations for America.  Perception of individuals or groups can change from moment to moment.

Sometimes, a government will label local insurgents as terrorists.  This has occurred recently in Russia, China and the Philippines. Efforts by those governments have been used in the hope of winning U.S. assistance or approval for their campaigns.  Is the branding of such opposition legitimate?  History will decide.

Western political scientists are unable to agree on the qualifications of terrorism.  When attempts are made to form an international consensus, there is more confusion.  Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.  U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim urged the adoption of international counter terrorist measures.  Even then, some developing nations objected.  They considered much of the struggle a fight against foreign oppression and exploitation.  They believed the use of force was a "right."

Americans like to imagine themselves in a redemptive role.  We love freedom, equality of opportunity and self-reliance.  We cite the examples of Germany and Japan, following World War II as a triumph for democracy.  Before we bask in our success, we should look at some of our other examples of intervention.  History is a wonderful teacher.

In 1953, the elected president of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, decided to nationalize his country's oil supply.  His intent was to use the wealth for infrastructure, health care and education reform.  This outraged Britain and the U.S., prime users of the oil.  Soon, the Shah of Iran came to power, with close ties to the C.I.A.  For 25 years, the Shah and his secret police (SAVAK) quelled any perceived threat with imprisonment, torture and death.  In 1970, Islamic extremists swept to power under Ayatollah Khomeini and the Shah fled to America.

In 1954, elected president, Jacobo Arbenz, of Guatemala, had a plan.  He decided to nationalize some of the unused land in Guatemala, one of the poorest countries in the world.  The land, not being used, was claimed by the United Fruit Company, a  U.S. owned corporation, under the control of U.S. Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles.  President Arbenz was forced to flee the country and was replaced by a military dictatorship.  This is where we get the term, "Banana Republic."  Over one hundred thousand poor and indigenous people have been killed, but bananas are still bought here at bargain prices.

In 1960, newly independent from colonial rule, Patrice Lumumba was concerned about the poverty and justice in his country.  The CIA became involved and President Lumumba was dead, a year later, and replaced by another dictator, Mobutu.

In 1965, Indonesia was politically active.  President Sukarno, charismatic but a bit bizarre, was leading the major oil producing nation.  The C.I.A., fearing a communist takeover gave Sukarno's right wing military a list of "communists."  More than half a million people died in one of the worst massacres of the twentieth century.  Sukarno was removed by a coup.

Ten years later, East Timor, a former Portuguese colony was under threat by Indonesia.  The U.S. gave them weapons and their blessing, in the way of a visit by Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger.  As their plane departed, the Indonesian military invaded the island, killing about two hundred thousand of the eight hundred thousand  island inhabitants.  A few years later, East Timor declared independence, kicking out the Indonesian occupiers.  Soon, an Australian newspaper announced that oil and natural gas was found offshore in East Timor territorial waters.

In 1970, Chile elected its first socialist president, Salvadore Allende.  President Allende was a medical doctor.  As his first act as president, he directed that all school children should be given milk during the school day.  He had noted a severe vitamin deficiency among the poor children of the country.  About a third of Chileans lived in poverty.  The major natural resource of the country is copper.  The main copper company was U.S. owned Kennecott.  President Allende offered the current market price for the value of the copper mines at the time.  Kennecott said no and involved the U.S. government.  Through the efforts of President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, an embargo was ordered.  When the embargo failed to bring results, Allende was assassinated and U.S. supported Augusto Pinochet came to power. Under General Pinochet, more than 3,200 people were murdered and about 25,000 were imprisoned and tortured.

A few years ago, Bolivia held national elections.  Only 5% of the people bothered to vote.  Why?  When asked, the people felt they had no influence over their future.  They felt the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank had taken control of the nation's financing, cutting funding for education, health care and infrastructure.  Everything had been privatized, bringing foreign investors who could profit from the cheap labor.  The people had lost their will to fight back.

What about our own American Revolution?  Did the revolutionaries only strike at military targets?  I don't think that the Boston Tea Party was aimed at a military target.  Many of our own heroes came out of the American Revolution.  How would they be viewed today, had the British triumphed?  It's a fine line, to say the least.

I have to admit, I have some of that "terrorist" blood, myself.  Three of my Dutch ancestors were convicted and ordered to be hung when they organized the Dutch revolt against the British in New Amsterdam.  Eventually, they were spared by another court.  Several of my ancestors fought in the American Revolution.  They served as foot soldiers and Generals under George Washington.  Today, they are heroes, but they could have been called "terrorists."

An example of our own confusion regarding terrorism was shown today in "The Star," one of South Africa's top newspapers.  The U.S. government has removed Nobel Peace Prize winner and former president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, from its list of global terrorists.  Apparently, the State Department is reviewing names of hundreds of people who fought against the former apartheid government.  Why has this taken so long to accomplish?

Virginia Farris, public affairs spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa had an explanation.  Ms. Farris says the people will be delisted and receive 10 year waivers from the Department of Immigration and Homeland Security.  She said the regulations applied to everyone and there would be, "quite a number of leaders of countries around the world on the list."  Ms. Farris adds, "to make an exception for those who struggled against apartheid would require Congress to change the law, and that would be a very lengthy process."

Adding to the confusion, those government officials on the list could travel to the U.S., if they are government ministers.  They would have been rejected, if making application as private citizens.  Apparently, holding a cabinet post makes them a lesser threat.  Ms. Farris added that the removal from the list is only a ten year exclusion.  The exclusion would require renewal by Homeland Security upon expiration.  One U.S. Embassy official, wishing to remain anonymous, denied that Mandela was listed as a terrorist.  He refused to say what Mr. Mandela was listed as, however.

Let us not forget that in 1984, President Ronald Reagan re-established diplomatic relations with Baghdad and deleted it from the list of countries supporting terrorism.  He called Iraq a bastion against the, "Islamic Revolution."  When elected, President George Bush, Senior, said, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East.  The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and to increase our influence."

At the time this statement was made, U.S. companies with the backing of the State Department, were exporting products to Iraq that could be used to make biological weapons.  Those companies were not investigated during the 1990's when we tried to uncover the history of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Here we are again, attempting to define the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.  We're trying to convince the world  that it's not the oil, but democracy and independence we seek in Iraq.  We're spending a lot of money and trying to create a plan as we move along.

If we really are speaking of democracy and freedom, we must ask ourselves these questions.  Does our definition of democracy mean doing it the, "American Way?"  If Iraq is to be truly democratic, they must be free to choose their own allies and form their own economic and foreign policy.  What if that doesn't include American interests?  What if Iraq doesn't want to supply us with inexpensive oil?  Will our policy change?

President Bush will have to convince the rest of the world that his only interest in Iraq is freedom and prosperity.  The presence in Iraq of Halliburton does little to ease concern in much of the world.  If we fail to let Iraq follow their own destiny, even more will be lost than the precious American lives already gone.

When asked about the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, backed for so many years by the U.S. government, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had this to say.  "He may be a son of a bitch.  But at least he's our son of a bitch."  How many times must we repeat this phrase?

If you have questions or comments, you may email Stan.

ⒸCopyright Stan G. Kain 2003

No comments:

Post a Comment